(December 15, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: As I said, the arguments are tainted by the source's lack of credibility until and unless you can show otherwis. It's rather like having Giggling Nannie Doss cook you xmas dinner - sure, you might be lucky this time, but could you really trust it?
Are you thick?
If Richard Dawkins says 2+2=4 does the fact that he can't think himself out of a paper bag on anything outside zoology make 2+2=4 false?
Or can we examine the merits of the claim 2+2=4 on its own without worrying about who says it?
Right now I could dismiss every word you're saying because you've actually been trying to defend a logical fallacy, a fact that tanks any shred of credibility you might have scrounged up over your lifetime. Should I do that, or engage with your claims as they stand, independent of who says them?
